Pretty sure I don't like the attempts to elbow a prone foe from stnading you see after a lot of the throws though.

The text cards some up pretty quickly so I've transcribed them. Some I still can't quite make out though.

3:32 On his way to the drill ground, two of the garrison suspect Captain Smith of being a German spy, with disastrous results to themselves

3:37 ...two methods of bringing...No-Man's land...The men in this picture are instructed to knock their captor over to hit them or kick them, and then get away

3:40 [assumedly something about"Jujistu", given the next comment]...holds...weak man may force a strong man to come along

3:56 Most people think that Jujitsu is merely a series of trick holds, but our men are taught that they must knock all the fight out of a man before they try these holds on them. They are taught to kick quickly and effectively

4:15 Catching the enemy's leg and counter...crotch

4:20 Enemy attempts to seize you around waist. Counter with chin hold and break his neck.

Impressive for stand up fighting but like most civil defense systems it goes out the window rather quick when rifles, bayonetts and broken terrain add factored in. I read a few years back where after the battle of Belleau wood in 1918, that an American newspaper reported the Marines used boxing to defeat the Germans. It was a romantic notion and that was about all. Both sides relied on mortars, machine-guns, rifles, pistols, bayonetts and other weapons of destruction far more lethal than the human fist.

It was a romantic notion and that was about all. Both sides relied on mortars, machine-guns, rifles, pistols, bayonetts and other weapons of destruction far more lethal than the human fist.

With films like this I always find myself wondering how much of the training is for group morale, aggression and physical fitness; as opposed to 100% direct application in the field? Perhaps an element of propaganda too?

With films like this I always find myself wondering how much of the training is for group morale, aggression and physical fitness; as opposed to 100% direct application in the field? Perhaps an element of propaganda too?

Iain,

Some of it actually can be applied to the battlefield though its not as pretty as in the film. Anytime you find yourself fighting unarmed on the battlefield, or even at arm's distance to your enemy, then things have gotten pretty bad. There are exceptions such as operations in urban terrain where you're clearing rooms, houses, etc but even then its weapons first, fist last. During the time I was in service all my karate was put to use inside the enlisted man's club where some real humdinger brawls would occur. Often it would be five, six even ten guys fighting it out at the same time. I once was part of a brawl that involved two whole companies, one Marine, one Paratrooper (almost 200 men) that occured because we were both drinking in the same NCO club and decided to find out who was the toughest. John Wayne and Hollywood didn't have nothing on us that night, but come the next day you never saw some many black eyes, fat lips and missing teeth.

As you alluded to above much of the hand to hand taught in the military is done so for physcial fitness or to develop an aggressive spirit and sometimes even for propaganda. I remember as a child seeing every year paratroopers from the 101st airborne giving hand to hand demostations at the county fair. It was really fun to watch because they really went at it. There was all this kicking, throwing, shouting and chopping going on. However when those guys rotated over to Vietnam they used M-16's instead of karate chops.

This is a pretty interesting clip on military combatives, real propaganda too:

What I found most interesting about the film clip you posted was the fact that it was produced sometime during or shortly after the first World War, but the techniques used fall very much within karate, kung-gu, MMA, and a host of other Asian combatives that were not widely known in the west at that time. So it appears to me that western fighting arts have/had the same amount of dept and sophistication as their Asian counterparts. Its that we've just forgotten that over time.

Thanks for that. I’ve embedded the video to make it easier for people to view.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

What I found most interesting about the film clip you posted was the fact that it was produced sometime during or shortly after the first World War, but the techniques used fall very much within karate, kung-gu, MMA, and a host of other Asian combatives that were not widely known in the west at that time. So it appears to me that western fighting arts have/had the same amount of dept and sophistication as their Asian counterparts. It’s that we've just forgotten that over time.

That’s very true. If you had modern film of people of doing many of those techniques there would be an automatic assumption that those same techniques were Asian in origin. The west have done a ry poor job of preserving their combative methods … but when people from all over the globe start fighting then we see very similar solutions to the problem of violence being put forward. What works, works regardless of origin and it’s fascinating to see the “common ground” like this.

Great article, thanks for sharing. The question I have is, isnt going to the ground the last thing you want to do in a physical altercation? Im surprised BJJ is the first (and sometimes only if they dont do the other trainings listed in the article) thing they learn? Is it because the assumption is that one will be with a platoon, squad, etc, and while someone goes to the ground, their buddies will be there for the other insurgents/enemies?

Is it because the assumption is that one will be with a platoon, squad, etc, and while someone goes to the ground, their buddies will be there for the other insurgents/enemies?

Niel,

I'd say that's part of it. There's also the competitive element which would be appeal to soldiers, especially young, aggressive-physically active soldiers. Basically what the Army is doing is implementing a course that has both sport and combative elements within it. Something that not only can be applied in a rudmentary way to the battlefield but will also develop a soldier's fighting spirit through competition as well as their physical fitness. (Both of which are very important)

You're right ground grappling is the last thing one wants to do on the battlfield, but grappling does occur in hand to hand combat so the BJJ provides a base for the soldier to build on. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating BJJ as the solve all end all to the army's hand to hand program, but given the choice of BJJ and its full-contact/live sparring as opposed to some of the more esoteric/mystical BS I've seen introduced to the Army during the past 30 years, I'll take the BJJ any day.

isn’t going to the ground the last thing you want to do in a physical altercation?

Yes it is. I’d also suggest that a lot of what is used in skilled grappler vs. skilled grappler exchanges would not transpose that well to a battlefield environment. Holds, pins and locks that work well with a single unarmed opponent, don’t work well with armed opponents and in an environment where things are not guaranteed to be one on one. It’s also interesting to note that this was well established in the past.

Captain W.E. Fairbairn developed a system of unarmed combat that became a part of the training for the Shanghai Municipal Police, the British Commandos, the American Marine corp., the British Special Operations Executive and the American Office of Strategic Services during World War Two.

In his 1942 combat manual entitled, ‘Get Tough!’ Captain Fairbairn wrote, “You will have noted that no holds or locks on the ground are demonstrated. The reason for this is: THIS IS WAR.”

Captain Fairbairn goes on to explain that we should aim to regain our feet as quickly as possible, we are very vulnerable to attack whilst on the floor, that there is a vast difference between fighting on mats and on rocky ground or a road, and that the most important thing is to remain on your feet in the first instance if at all possible.

So ground fighting hold and locks were not seen as a workable or relevant skill set during WW2. I would suggest that the reason that has changed is what Michael said above i.e. the focus being placed on fighting spirit and fitness as opposed to directly applicable combative methods for the battlefield.

Michael Rosenbaum wrote:

Something that not only can be applied in a rudimentary way to the battlefield but will also develop a soldier's fighting spirit through competition as well as their physical fitness. (Both of which are very important)

The British Paratroopers have the tradition of recruits engaging in “milling” (putting on boxing gloves and getting them to smash seven bells out of each other). The aim of the milling is not to develop useable boxing skills (as you can see from the clip below), but to develop aggression and fighting spirit. BJJ can be used in a similar way. There’s also the fact that BJJ is hugely popular and hence is likely to be an attractive option and a good way to get soldiers to fully commit to this side of training. The physical fitness and fighting spirit developed are applicable to all areas of conflict, whereas empty hand skills (of all kinds) don’t really have that much relevance to modern warfare.

In summary, ground holds and locks are not really applicable, but the physical fitness and fighting spirit develop though their practise most definitely are. I would therefore say they are adopted in to the training as a popular and effective way to develop those vitally important attributes.

I'd been training in karate for several years when I entered the military, but all of my karate skills were put to use in the enlisted man's club, or the numerous bars located around the place were I was stationed. We also had a high ranking NCO who had learned Tae Kwon Do while stationed in Korea, who led classes during the morning. It was really popular, and I have pictures of my mates practicing outside, during the wintertime, in below freezing temps. However, not once did I ever see Tae Kwon Do used in the field or during a deployment.

I've heard more than one karate/kung-fu/judo/MMA instructor tell me that they'd like too, or have taught military personel. Well, that's great but it dosen't make you an expert on battlefield combat and tactics. IT just means you've taught karate to someone who is in the military. For the eager karate-ka who really wants some insight into military hand to hand my advice is: Put on a heavy ruck sack, take an old rifle or broom stick, go out into a muddy field and run, jump, roll around on the ground for 30 min then run up the steepest hill you can find and when you get to the top fight your best friend (who might I add has done the same as you) and manage to still hold on to your weapon/broom stick. Oh, and also let me add before you do this little exercise go two days without sleeping or eating. Then you'll be at the ballpark's front gate. I'm really serious about this. Most karate-ka can't imagaine fighting on broken terrain much less hand to hand ala the military.

I've heard more than one karate/kung-fu/judo/MMA instructor tell me that they'd like too, or have taught military personel. Well, that's great but it doesn’t make you an expert on battlefield combat and tactics. IT just means you've taught karate to someone who is in the military.

Good point! We sometimes see that association used as a means validate what a person is teaching i.e. “As taught to Unit X!” However, I've never seen the link; and besides I would say that civilians need an approach that addresses the specifics of civilian conflict and military personnel need an approach that addresses the specifics of military conflict.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

For the eager karate-ka who really wants some insight into military hand to hand my advice is: Put on a heavy ruck sack, take an old rifle or broom stick, go out into a muddy field and run, jump, roll around on the ground for 30 min then run up the steepest hill you can find and when you get to the top fight your best friend (who might I add has done the same as you) and manage to still hold on to your weapon/broom stick. Oh, and also let me add before you do this little exercise go two days without sleeping or eating. Then you'll be at the ballpark's front gate.

Can I use ankle locks? :-) Kidding aside that’s a nice illustration of the differences we are talking about. Thanks for the insights Michael! Most useful.